E^5 



mi 



UBR AR 



VOF 

ton, 



CO/V GR 



ess 



"i' II mi 



801 



HOLUNGER 
pH8J 

MILL RUN F3-1543 



SPEECH 



OF 




W. P. FESSENDEN, OF MAINE, 



i/° 



^ 



AGAINST 



The Repeal of the Missouri Prohibition, North o/"36° 30'. 



Delivered in the Senate of the United States, March 3, 1854, on the bill to 
establish Territorial Governments in Nebraska and Kansas. 



Mr. PRESIDENT : — It has been my desire, if this debate continued 
long enough to afford me a fair opportunity of doing so, to submit a few 
remarks upon the subject under discussion, or upon so much of it as 
relates to the repeal of the Missouri Compromise. The hour is now, how- 
ever, so late that I am exceedingly reluctant to enter into this debate at all ;. 
and I would refrain from doing so altogether, but for my own position, and 
what I believe to be the almost universal sentiment of the people of Maine. 
As the youngest Senate* 1 in this body — the Senator who has most recently 
taken a seat upon this floor — I have feared that it might look something like 
intrusion in me, at any time, and especially at so late an hour, to present any 
remarks whatever to the Senate upon a matter which has been so thoroughly 
discussed, and upon which nothing new in the way of argument can be ad- 
duced. If, however, any excuse were necessary, it may be found in the fact r 
stated in the public press, that the Legislature of my own State, a Democratic 
Legislature, has recently passed resolutions, almost unanimously, instructing 
its Senators to endeavor, by every proper means in their power, to defeat the 
passage of this bill in its present shape. Under such circumstances, Mr. 
President, if I should suffer the occasion to pass without entering my protest 
otherwise than by a mere vote upon the subject, I might be adjudged neglectful 
of my duty. I may add, sir, in reference to the hour, that, controlled by the 
consideration that until every other Senator who desired to speak had been 
allowed the opportunity to do so, and trusting that I might have the privilege 
at a proper hour in the day to express such views as I might happen to enter- 
tain, I have remained silent to this time. But, sir, I understand, and it is 
generally understood, that the determination is to bring this matter to a final 
vote- before we adjourn ; and I have, therefore, only to avail myself of the 
present hour, as I best may. 

Mr. President, I am opposed to slavery in any form and shape in which 
it exists, or may exist. I am free to say, that had I been a member of Co^ 
grees when the question of the admission of Missouri was brought before it} 



\ 






and had then entertained the same opinions that I entertain now, I should 
have voted against its admission, as a slave State, to the last. I am free to 
say further, that had I been a member of Congress in 1850, I should have 
voted against what is called the fugitive slave law; and I should have voted 
against any organization of the Territories of New Mexico and Utah, unless 
with the Wilmot proviso as a part of the bills providing for such organization. 
But, sir, while- I say this, I may express the. regret that questions such as 
these have come to assume now a position of mere North and South. I do not 
intend, on this occasion, to argue the question of the social, or moral, or reli- 
gious eifects of slavery. Sir, I have none of what is called " sickly senti- 
mentality " on this subject. I am not a " humanity-monger," in the lan- 
guage of the honorable Senator from Georgia ; that is to say, I am not a man 
who makes a trade of humanity ; but when I say this, I hope I may be 
allowed also to say one thing more ; and that is, that I respect even a " human- 
ity-monger," a man who makes a trade of it, quite as much as one, if such 
an one can be found, who has no feeling at all upon the question of slavery as 
it has existed, and continues to exist, in so large a portion of these United 
States. *' 

While I do not intend, Mr. President, to make any extended remarks in 
relation to that part of my subject, for the very sufficient' reason that the 
right to argue a question of that kind seems to be confined to Southern gen- 
tlemen, and that when a man from the free States, according to my observa- 
tion, rises here to speak on the subject of slavery in its relations to humanity, 
he becomes at once a " humanity-monger," or a sickly sentimentalist, or 
a fanatic, or something of that kind ; while, at the same time, it seems to be 
perfectly right and proper that the other side of the question shall be debated 
at any length, at the desire or convenience of gentlemen — although I say I 
do not intend to enter into that question — I must be permitted to state to 
the honorable Senator from Mississippi, [Mr. Brown,] that the people of my 
section of the country do not agree with him, and wpuld not be much affected 
by the picture which he has presented of the peculiar social advantages of 
the institution. Sir, in the portion of country from which you and I come, 
[Mr. Foot being in the chair,] labor of an}' kind, if it be honest labor, is 
honorable. In that section of the country all men are equal, politically. 
Their social relations, and their social condition and position, they make for 
themselves. Every man must find them, or make them, as he can ; but it 
militates nothing against his social position, although it may change the social 
sphere in which he moves — it is nothing that derogates from any political 
right, or any social right, or any other right, that he has — that necessity 
compels him to labor ; ay^ sir, and compels him to labor in a menial employ- 
ment. In my country a menial employment, if it is an honest employment, 
pursued from necessity and not from taste, however menial it may be, is hon- 
orable to a man, if it be honestly pursued. We judge not the man by the 
kind of labor he follows, or by the amount of remuneration he receives for it. 
If he is an honest man, and labors honestly, he is more respected than 
one who performs a dishonest service, be the remuneration ever so high, ay, 
even although the reward for it might possibly be the highest office in the gift 
of the people of this country. 

This may be a vulgar notion, and it is a vulgarity common in that section 
•of the country, we are willing to admit. But although our people entertain 
these vulgar notions, they are not without others. They are a reading people, 
and a thinking people. They have churches, academies, common schools, 



newspapers, and all the ordinary resources of moral and mental education. 
As I have said, they read and they think, and, among other things upon which 
they entertain fixed opinions is this — that the institution of slavery is of no 
advantage, in any point of view, to any portion of the country in which it 
exists. They reason upon this subject, perhaps, somewhat from contrasts. 
They contrast, for instance, the States of Ohio and Kentucky, of Virginia 
and New York. They go back to the time when Virginia was far ahead of 
New York in population and power, and they look at her present condition, 
and see that she is not inferior in physical and natural advantages ; and per- 
haps they draw inferences unfavorable to the institution of slavery in its 
effects upon the growth and welfare of a people. They have also another 
idea ; and that is, that inasmuch as they are a part of this people, inasmuch 
as they belong to this country, and are a part of the great whole, whatever is 
injurious to the whole becomes a matter of interest to them. And, sir, they 
believe, that if an institution injuriously affects the prosperity of a part, its 
evils are felt throughout the whole system. It touches them as citizens, and 
as having an interest in the common welfare; and they have a right to con- 
sider and think of it ; and not only that, but to express their opinions about 
it ; and when they come here, desiring to uphold, within the scope of the 
Constitution, the rights of all the citizens of the country, of all men in this 

country, with due respect to every compact in the Constitution or otherwise 

for they are a people who regard compacts — they have a right to think and 
speak as they please on this subject of slavery, as of every other, through 
their representatives, in this branch of Congress or the other. And tbis rio-tit 
they will exercise. 

But, Mr. President, I go further, and say, that, call it what you will 

fanaticism, sentimentality, or any other name that may be most satisfactory 
to gentlemen — we claim the right not only to speak out our opinions in rela- 
tion to the institution of slavery, whenever our interests, as a part of the 
great whole, are affected by it ; but if there is any portion of this country 
where our interference is not precluded by the provisions of the Constitution, 
we have the further constitutional, and legal, and moral right, to act upon it' 
and to act upon it here as well as elsewhere. And we may act, and should 
act, as well with reference to those great principles of justice and equality 
upon which our free institutions are based, as with regard to considerations 
touching our national or individual advancement and prosperity. Sir, I am 
one of those who believe them all to be so intimately blended that they are 
and must remain forever, inseparable. 

Leaving these general propositions, permit me to observe, Mr. President 
that the people of the free States derive a more peculiar and immediate rela- 
tion to this question of slavery from the Constitution itself. On looking at 
its provisions, they find that the slave power in this country — if I may so 
call it — has the benefit of the only inequality that I know of existing in that 
instrument. I allude to the principle upon which Representatives are appor- 
tioned. Gentlemen all know — for every one is familiar with the provision to 
which I refer — that in this particular a very great advantage is given to the 
slave States. Its effect is to present in the National Councils that which 
in those States is recognised as property. If, then, this inequality exists, the 
free States are unquestionably interested to limit the increase and extension 
of such a power, so far as they can constitutionally do so, whether in old ter- 
ritory or new. Sir, we feel the effects of this inequality every day. We 
feel it in the greater degree of power exercised by the citizens of one State 



than is exercised by the same number of citizens of another. We feel it in 
that unity of purpose and concentration of action which are so much more 
readily accomplished among a smaller than a larger number of persons, and 
which we never fail to experience when the interests of slave labor and free 
labor are supposed to be in conflict. Sir, that unity and concentration which 
the predominant nature and character of this institution aiford, in all ques- 
tions of national legislation affecting it, or affected by it, are quite enough of 
themselves, without superadding the weight of an unequal representation. 
In the free States we have no such principle of union. Our interests, whether 
fancied or real, are as various as our pursuits. And thus it has ever hap- 
pened that the political power of this country has been wielded, and the legis- 
lation of this country moulded, by that interest which, when the occasion 
calls for it, can always be brought to bear with its whole force upon a given 
point. 

Sir, I am aware that at the formation of the Constitution slavery existed 
in most, if not all, of the States of this Union, and hence the provision I refer 
to might seem to carry with it the appearance of equality. But, as a matter 
of history, it is known that this rule of representation was much contested ; 
and a single glance at the condition of the country at that time will readily 
explain why it was so. Senators are, undoubtedly, much more familiar with 
this matter than I am, for they have considered and weighed it much more 
than I have. Sir, on looking back to that early time, we see that the bound- 
aries of the United States were fixed and determined. In some of the States 
slavery had died out, and in others, from whatever cause, it was fast passing 
away. The limits of slave territory and free territory in the old thirteen 
were then as well understood and defined in men's minds as they are at the 
present day on the face of the earth. Under these circumstances, known as 
these facts were, and with the limits of this country so specifically described 
and understood, it was wise for the framers of the Constitution, and for the 
people, to understand, and it is to be presumed that they did understand, just 
how far this inequality in the Constitution of the United States would operate 
upon that portion of the country which was destined to be free country. I 
say it wa3 as well understood then as it is now ; and that it was so, has- 
become, as we may well suppose, a matter of history. The objections that 
were made to that provision in the Constitution at the time it was formed 
were done away or overruled, and the North, or, as I suppose then there was 
no North, the free States, or those destined to be free, considered themselves, 
and at the time must have been considered, to have reasoned as they did rea- 
son, that the effect of that institution upon the political power of the country 
must necessarily be limited by the extent of that which remained, and would 
remain, slave country. The Ordinance of 1787 had been passed, and was in 
operation, and was recognised, and that tended to render still more and still 
better defined how far this provision in the Constitution would operate against 
what was to be the free portion of this country, and how far this inequality in 
the Constitution was to affect the rights and interests of the North. 

But, sir, in process of time what did we see? The North has been accused 
here of endeavoring to oppress the South, and of wishing to limit the power 
of the South under the Constitution. Did the free States ever exhibit any 
disposition to limit that power, so long as their action was confined to the origi- 
nal territory of this country? Was there any objection to the admission of 
Kentucky as a slave State, or to the admission of Tennessee as a slave State? 
W T as there any agitation then upon the subject? Was there any fanaticism? 



Was there any objection to the admission of any one State formed out of that 
which was originally slave territory — Mississippi or Alabama? None at all, 
sir. They came in as readily, and met with as little objection from the free 
States of the Union, as any other act of the Congress of the United States. 
This is all matter of history, matter of common knowledge. Everybody 
knows it who is at all familiar with the history of this Union. 

But the purchase of the Louisiana Territory created a new state of things. 
Slavery existed there at the time of the purchase. That acquisition was 
generally admitted at the time, and is now generally admitted on both sides 
of this Chamber, to have been at least of doubtful constitutional propriety. 
The honorable Senator from Connecticut [Mr. Toucev] was the first, I be- 
lieve, in this debate, who has said that he considered it perfectly justifiable 
under the Constitution. It was not so considered at the time. It has very 
seldom been so considered since, by the best authorities upon the Constitution 
of the country. It has been pretty generally admitted that it was, in point 
of fact, beyond the original intention of the framers of the Constitution, and 
has been justified only as a matter of necessity. But, waiving that, Louisi- 
ana became the property of the Union by virtue of the purchase in 1803. I 
think that is the date ; but exact dates are of little consequence. Soon after 
that — some years after — a proposition was made to admit the State of Louis- 
iana into the Union. What was the effect of that admission ? We had 
already four new slave States, I think, with eight Senators on this floor, with- 
out objection on the part of the free States. Louisiana was proposed as a 
new State, to come into the Union, changing the condition of things as it ex- 
isted at the time the Constitution was formed, and giving to the South more 
and new power, not intended, not foreseen, and not anticipated by the North, 
or by the free States ; for I am unwilling to repeat North and South so 
continually, as if there were no other points of compass in this country. 
Louisiana came into the Union as a State. Was there any fanaticism upon 
the subject? Was there any difficulty made by the free States then? Did 
they throw themselves in the way of the prosperity of the slave States? Did 
they make any disturbance about the " peculiar institution? " The moment 
Louisiana was admitted, more power than ever was anticipated under the 
Constitution was acquired by the slave portion of this country ; but was there 
any objection on the part of the free States? Not at all. If the subject 
was mentioned, it was passed over without creating any difficulty an}'where. 
And why ? Because it seemed to be a matter of propriety or necessity. As 
my honorable friend, the Senator from Massachusetts, has said, you could 
not have done otherwise, except by a mere act of abolition — by saying dis- 
tinctly that Louisiana should not come in at all until it had taken measures 
to abolish slavery ; a condition the free States did not propose ; perhaps, did 
not desire. Was there any ground of complaint here on the part of the slave 
States of this Union? Had they any right to say, under the circumstances, 
that there had been any illiberality, any fanaticism, any desire to limit their 
power, or to confine them within narrow bounds ? Soon after that, some seven 
or eight } r ears, Missouri was proposed for admission, and Arkansas became a 
Territory. That was slave territory too. Slaves were there, I believe, at 
the time of cession. 

But, by this time — and it is not remarkable — the free States of this Union 
began to inquire what was to be the end and effect of all this. Here was 
territory which was not in the Union at the start. Here is territory exten- 
sive enough to make some six, or seven, or eight, or ten new States of this 



Union, which are to be admitted, one after another, and thus, probably, to 
change the whole existing state of things, as we understood them to be at the 
time the Constitution was formed. They then took a position for the first 
time — and I will show, by-and-by, why they took that position — that no more 
slave States should be received into the Union. Sir, was there not some 
reason for it? What consideration had they received'? Was not this Terri- 
tory of Louisiana purchased, as we are told, by the common treasure of the 
United States 1 And, on the principle now assumed, that what is purchased 
by the common blood or the common treasure belongs to all, and must be 
fairly divided, was there not some rsasoh why the North should inquire 
whether this thing was to go on, from one State to another, contrary to the 
original intention and understanding when the Constitution was formed, until 
we should be at last overborne by the territory thus purchased 1 Was there 
anything remarkable about it — anything that should occasion what I have 
understood to be the tremendous excitement of that day, when the same cry 
which has since been heard in regard to the dissolution of the Union was loud 
all over this country, especially in the slave States, and we were threatened 
with disunion if the matter was persisted in 1 There was such an excitement, 
and it resulted, as these contests have eternally resulted since the foundation 
of this Government, in the North giving way. Senators may talk here about 
this matter being settled ; about the North having the balance of power in its 
hands, which it may retain, and will retain, in despite of every effort or wish 
to control it. But what is the fact ? The fact, as shown by history, is, that 
there has been no conflict between the free States and the slave States, since 
the foundation of the Government, in relation to this important question, 
where the free States have not been obliged to yield in the end ; and they 
have been obliged to } r ield because they were too much afflicted with that 
class of men described by the honorable Senator from Massachusetts, [Mr. 
Sumner,] in his speech the other day, and for the want, moreover, of that 
unity of interest and purpose of which I have spoken heretofore. 

That contest continued for a time. What was the result of it? It is not 
pretended that at that period there was a single individual citizen, out of Mis- 
souri, living and established north of the line finally agreed upon, with slaves, 
or otherwise. It was a wilderness, and there were certainly no slaves there. 
Therefore, there were no rights of slavery there. The result was an agree- 
ment, or compact, or Avhatever you choose to call it ; for gentlemen now, 
in this branch of Congress, do not seem to deny that it was a compact. By 
that agreement a line was to be drawn on a certain parallel, and in all terri- 
tory above that line, from that day thenceforth, slavery was to be prohibited, 
leaving the implication that slavery might be permitted below that line. 
Under that agreement and stipulation, not in the form of a contract, signed, 
sealed, and the consideration expressed, in order to suit the legal views of the 
Senator from Connecticut, [Mr. Toucey,] not drawn up according to the 
law books ; but sufficient to be an understanding between honorable men, 
acting for a nation, acting upon a great national question, that line was estab- 
lished, and Missouri came into the Union. What was the result 1 What 
is the bargain? Gentlemen have spoken of a bargain. It was nothing more 
nor less than this : that above a certain line slavery should never go. That 
was the consideration. For that, Missouri should come into the Union as a 
State, unrestricted with reference to slavery. That is all. In the course of 
this debate it has been said that the free States broke the compact — that they 
objected to the admission of Arkansas. The fallacy of that statement has 



7 

been proved in a public print. No man now will repeat it. There was no 
opposition founded on the fact that slavery existed there. Mr. Adams was 
at the time the leading Northern man in the House of Representatives, and 
he expressly said there was no such objection. No one made it an objection. 
So, then, with reference to the admission of Missouri itself, and with refer- 
ence to the admission of the State of Arkansas afterwards, Senators cannot 
make out any breach of compact, if compact it was, on the part of the free 
States. 

See what was done. 

Look a little at what was given and what was received. On one side were 
three powerful States, destined to be powerful, each at the very moment of 
their admission entitled to two Senators in this body, thus vastly increasing 
the political power of the slave States — I speak upon this question now, 
not as a sentimentalist, but as a politician, in reference to its political 
aspects and effects — coming in at once, or within a very short space of time. 
They gave to Congress all the power of those States, both by their Senators 
and their Representatives. What was given on the other side 1 A chance 
that, at some future day, a day which at that period was understood to be 
remote, far remote, above that Compromise line might be formed free States. 
At that time the country was inhabited by Indian tribes. The title to a large 
portion of it was not acquired, and could only be acquired by treaty, which 
treaty would require the sanction of two-thirds of this Senate, with all the 
power of the slave States in full exercise, to cai'ry it into effect, before the 
lands could be occupied. And what has this Government been doing since 1 
The honorable Senator from Tennessee [Mr. Bell] has informed us; and we 
all understand that a large portion of that territory has been set aside as 
Indian territory ; and that, in addition to the three or four tribes of Indians — 
1 do not pretend to know the exact number — inhabiting that region of country 
at the time of its cession, some fifteen or twenty more have been removed and 
located upon it. This, sir, was the consideration received, and it is all the 
consideration. On the one side, three States were admitted within the course 
of a few years, with all the power they could bring into this body. On the 
other side, was the remote possibility and contingency that, at some future 
day, when a large portion of the country, not yet settled, could be populated, 
free States should be carved out of it. Am. I right, as a matter of factl I 
believe myself to be historically correct. 

What has happened since 1 Florida was admitted as a slave State into the 
Union, without one word of objection on the part of the free States ; thus 
making another slave State, coming in by purchase, above or beyond what 
was originally contemplated in the Constitution. A little further on, and 
Texas became annexed to this country ; and the same line, by another com- 
pact or agreement, was to be run through that Territory ; but what was the 
effect of it 1 The immediate admission of a large, and rich, and powerful 
State, with two other Senators, giving additional political strength to the 
slave power ; we — I say we, because this is put as a question of North and 
South — the Northern or free States of this Confederacy, having the possi- 
bility, at some future day, that we might acquire some additional free States 
out of the territory thus gained. I should like very much, as the Senator 
from Connecticut [Mr. Toucey] and other Senators have done, to speak for 
the whole country, and not for a part of it ; but the difficulty is, that those 
gentlemen from the free States, from the Northern States especially, who 
come here with these words in their mouths, to speak for all the country, and 



8 

not for a part of it, are apt to forget the part they come from ; and, there- 
fore, if I would not also forget the portion of the country which I represent, 
I must speak of that first, and before all. 

Here, sir, have been three, four, five — I believe those are all — five pow- 
erful States admitted into this Union, with ten Senators upon this floor, with- 
out objection, and all from newly acquired territory. Is there to be seen in 
this a disposition to oppress the South, to take advantage of numbers in 
reference to this question 1 Has any narrow, short-sighted policy been ex- 
hibited ? I have not been able to find the slightest evidence of it. 

Well, sir, the Compromise measures of 1850 became the law of the land. 
We had acquired new territory from Mexico, and new questions arose. And, 
sir, although the whole of that newly-acquired territory was free territory in 
every sense of the word, yet, California could only come into this Union as a 
free State, on the condition that two Territories, Utah and New Mexico, 
should be so organized that they might hereafter become slave States. Such 
was the Compromise of 1850 in this particular. I wish Senators to under- 
stand that I do not recognise that so-called Compromise as in any manner 
binding upon me. Though a member of the Whig Convention at Baltimore, 
which made those Compromise measures a part of its platform, my honorable 
friend from Georgia [Mr. Dawson] will bear me witness — for we were both 
members of the committee which reported those resolutions — that I refused 
my assent to the resolution endorsing those measures. But they became the 
law of the land, and are recognised throughout the country as a compromise ; 
and by those measures the South obtained all it could reasonably anticipate 
or desire. 

Mr. President, it has been claimed for these Compromise measures of 1850, 
that they satisfied all parties, and restored peace to a distracted country. Se- 
cessionists, disunionists at the South, men who stand, I suppose, in this par- 
ticular, upon the same level wUh the fanatic and sentimentalist, were hardly 
disposed to remain quiet ; but the great mass of the people, North and South, 
seemed willing to avoid all further agitation, and wait the event. Why were 
they so disposed 1 ? Sir, the whole country had been threatened with a dissolu- 
tion of the Union. We heard much of concord and brotherly love. We of the 
free States, especially, were ominously informed that certain fire-eating gen- 
tlemen of the South Avere about to dissolve the Union within a week ; and, if I 
rightly recollect, it was dissolved some two or three times, in this very Cham- 
ber. At any rate, the day was appointed ; but, from some defect in the ar- 
rangements, it slipped by, and the thing was not done — the bolt did not fall. 
Sir, it is well understood that upon that threat, that pretence, the free States 
were induced to yield the Wilmot proviso. I know it was argued that slavery 
could never go into those Territories — Utah and New Mexico ; that it was 
excluded by a law of Providence, irrepealable in its nature, stronger than all 
human laws, which rendered the Ordinance of 1787, as applied to those Ter- 
ritories, not only useless, but absurd. If such was believed to be the fact, 
what was the occasion of so much angry excitement ? Was the Union to be 
■dissolved for a mere abstraction — an idea that, if carried out, could lead to 
no practical result 1 

Well, sir, the people of the free States have, pretty generally, chosen to 
submit. As a private citizen, I have been willing to content myself with the 
right to abhor the institution of slavery as much as I pleased ; not wishing to 
interfere with it in any way within the limits of any State — either that of the 
Senator from Georgia, [Mr. Dawson,] or any other; having no desire to 



disturb his rights under the Constitution, or the tights of any other person, 
directly or indirectly ; but feeling through my whole" system a great aversion 
to the thing itself, and laboring, moreover, as a citizen of this Union, residing 
in a tree State, under the strong pressure arising from the constitutional in- 
equality I have already spoken of. With these sentiments I have felt, and 
shall ever feel, bound in duty to resist, here or elsewhere, so far as I con- 
stitutionally may, the extension of slavery in this country to the utmost of 
my power— with little effect, it may be, but the obligation is no less impera- 
tive on that account. 

But peace was obtained. We were a happy people. We sat down under 
our own vine and our own fig-trees. We endeavored to be quiet. Brotherly 
loye was all abroad. We met our friends from the South in perfect concord. 
All differences had been settled. There was no trouble anywhere. We were 
all, to use a familiar expression, " happy as the days are long." Suddenly, 
in the midst of this concord of ours, comes a proposition to take from the free 
States just that which had been given for all these civil, social, and political 
advantages which had accrued to the South— to take the little that was al- 
lowed to the free States by the compromise, or compact, or whatever you call 
it, ot lblO. I his proposition presents itself in this Chamber without a word 
to the country without a syllable having been said, to my knowledge, at least, 
m any State of the Union upon the subject. Southern gentlemen on this floor 
repudiate the authorship of the proposition, protesting that it did not come 
from them, and would not have come from them— admitting in point of fact, 
as 1 understand them, that they considered the whole thing as dishonorable 
in itself, and the sin of it should not be laid at their door. 

Why, then, is this remarkable proposition before us ? For what purpose 
has it come? To allay agitation? There was none. To make peace? There 
was nothing but harmony, says the Compromise of 1850. Why was it 1 I 
am at a loss to divine. Was it to establish a principle merely? Will you 
set this country in a flame upon a principle? Gentlemen from the South tell 
us that nothing is to be gained by slavery from it. They tell us upon their 
honor that they think slavery cannot go into these Territories. Nothing prac- 
tically good, or practically evil, is to come from it. And yet we find every 
man of them, almost, on this floor, and on this question, contending that this 
thing shall be done, that it is right, and that although they had received all 
the advantages which I have mentioned from the previous legislation of this 
Government, they yet demand more, and require that the Compromise which 
set aside the whole of this territory for freedom shall, for political considera- 
tions, be abrogated and dissolved. 

Sll ^T I h u aVG in mj P ossession an address to the people of Maine, bearing 
date March 7, 1820, and signed by a majority of their Representatives in Con- 
gress, among whom were Enoch Lincoln, afterwards Governor of the State, 
and Ezekicl Whitman, afterwards Chief Justice of its highest court. That 
address states the true ground of objection to the admission of that State into 
the Union. At that time she equalled in size and population any of one 
half the States of the Union. No one disputed her right to be admitted as a 
sovereign and independent State, as Alabama and Mississippi had been ad- 
mitted, without a question. Her territory was a part and portion of the old 
thirteen. She had furnished soldiers in the Revolution, and recruits to your 
army and navy in the second war of independence, as it was called. She had 
every claim to be received with open arms ; and yet, sir, how was the fact ? 
Her admission was opposed on political grounds. The opposition was founded 



10 

in a jealousy of power. Maine was objected to without Missouri, because 
Maine, without Missouri, increased the power of the non-slaveholding States. 
For the first time, the question of the balance of power was raised, and raised 
by the South. And thus it happened that Maine, with her thousands of in- 
habitants, in full position, and having every capacity to become a powerful 
member of this Union, was to be, and was, excluded, notwithstanding the pre- 
vious admission of new slave States almost without a question, unless, and 
until, yet another slaveholding State could come in at the same time. Sir, 
with such a warning, was it wonderful, I ask again, that the free States should 
have begun to inquire where this was to end, and should have insisted upon 
a line beyond which slavery should not go ? And when we find the South, 
almost to a man, advancing to obliterate that line, can we be at a loss to un- 
derstand the object of such a movement ? 

The time and the manner, as it strikes me, of introducing this proposition 
into this body, are both singularly unfortunate. Why, sir, have gentlemen 
forgotten, on either side of the Chamber, the appeal they made on this floor 
to the people of the North to quiet agitation ? Have they forgotten all they 
said and prayed for? Have they forgotten the denunciations they threw out 
against those who causelessly or uselessly brought this country into a state of 
agitation? Have they forgotten the stirring appeals they made to the frater- 
nal feeling of the free States. If they have not forgotten these things, let me 
ask them with what propriety can they now, when they say this is merely the 
affirmation of a principle ; when they admit that no practical good is to come 
of it ; when they say they expect nothing of it except to put a few words upon 
the statute-book — how can they, with any regard to their own pretensions 
to love of country, yield their support to a proposition like this ? — a proposi- 
tion most carefully calculated to excite all the angry feelings that can be ex- 
cited in the bosoms of Northern men. Sir, this was a compact. Will they 
not yield something for good faith ? It is demonstrated here that the South 
received its consideration long ago. Will the free States feel nothing at being 
robbed of their portion? It is shown, palpably shown, that slavery has gained 
great advantages from this new territory ; will you take away all the ad- 
vantages you agreed some thirty years ago that freedom should receive from 
it? 

Mr. DOUGLAS. Who says it was a compact? 

Mr. FESSENDEN. W T ho says it was a compact ? Everybody has said 
so since I have been on this floor. It has been said so over and over again. 

Mr. DOUGLAS. What friend of the bill said so ? 

Mr. FESSENDEN. I cannot call names, but I have heard nothing else. 

Mr. PRATT. Give one name. 

Mr. DOUGLAS. Yes, give one name. It has been called a compromise. 

Mr. FESSENDEN. Well, I am not particular about words. If it was 
a compromise, what else was it but a compact, if that compromise resulted in 
an agreement ? 

Mr. BUTLER. The gentleman seems to argue the question very fairly. 
Will he allow me to make a single remark ? 

Mr. FESSE-NDEN. Certainly. 

Mr. BUTLER. I wish to pronounce what I think is consistent with the 
purpose of this bill. In the Constitution — now mark what I say, the gentle- 
man seems to trace distinctions very clearly — in the Constitution there were 
no such parties as North and South ; there were thirteen States entering into 
this Union, and under the Constitution 



11 

Mr. FESSENDEN. I deny that the thirteen States, as States, framed 
the Constitution. It was the act of the people. 

Mr. BUTLER. Very well ; go on. I have no hope for you. 

Mr. FESSENDEN. The Constitution was not formed by the States as 
States. It was formed by the people of the United States, as I have always 
understood it. I am not choice, as I stated, in the use of language; and I 
do not care whether gentlemen admit the word " compact " to be applicable 
or not. I mean by that the proposition that they made themselves, and en- 
forced by the aid of Northern votes ; those who voted for it from the North 
being pledged to go home and defend it before their people, on the ground 
that they had received this consideration fur it. That is the doctrine, and no 
other, that I have heard, and is all I wish to say in reference to that point. 

I hope if there is agitation ; if there is excitement ; if there is fanaticism, 
if you choose to call it so ; if there is sickly sentimentality, if you like that 
better, in the free States from this time forward, you will just cast your eyes 
back to those who made it, started it, and gave occasion for it. If you hear 
of cavillings at the North, coupled with denunciations of slavery at the South, 
recollect the state of quiet from which you brought it forth. It is not enough 
to tell the people of the free States that this was tendered by the North to 
the South. We do not admit the authority of the Senator making it, though 
he may occupy a most eminent position, to speak for the North. He has no 
more authority than I have. At any rate, we repudiate him as acting for us 
in our part of the country. I can answer for my own State. With all the 
respect that the people of my State may have for his character and position, 
he cannot claim, and the gentlemen of the South cannot claim for him, or for 
any other gentlemen from the North who act with him, that he speaks for us, 
except so far as his own State is concerned. They cannot claim for him that 
he has any right to tender from the North this release. And allow me to say, 
that I do not understand that principle of honor, although it seems to be well 
understood here, which allows that what cannot honorably be taken directly, 
can be grasped with honor when offered by another having no authority to 
give it. There may be some very nice distinctions in the minds of gentlemen. 
They may be able to reconcile the difficulty. They could not, it seems, move 
in this matter ; they could not undertake to bring it up in any shape or form ; 
but, inasmuch as the proposition has come here, they will not wait to see 
whether it is authorized by those who alone are competent to make it, but 
will take it at once, and settle that question afterwards. Sir, I do not under- 
stand such a principle. 

Sir, what are the particular grounds of excuse for the introduction of this 
troublesome question at the present time 1 Mark you, no practical result is 
expected from it. No change of position is to arise from it. Nothing is to 
come out of it at all, except the repeal of this restriction in the act for the ad- 
mission of Missouri. That is all, and that all is nothing, say Southern gentlemen. 
Why, then, is it to be done 1 Because, say several Senators, that restriction is 
unconstitutional. But upon this point there is a difference of opinion among 
themselves. I understand my honorable friend from North Carolina [Mr. 
Badger] to say — and I have great respect for his opinion as a lawyer — that 
he has no doubt of the constitutionality of that restriction. I understand other 
Southern gentlemen to affirm its unconstitutionality. 

But it is singular, that, in the history of this question, the unconstitution- 
ality of this restriction laid dormant in the minds of Southern gentlemen for 
more than thirty years. It is very singular that it laid long enough for them 



12 

to avail themselves of the admission of Missouri as a State, of Arkansas as a 
State, and of Texas as a State. When the latter question came up in this 
Senate, not the first man that I know of, or ever heard of, breathed the idea, 
or suggested it in any way, that a restriction thus fixed and determined was 
unconstitutional. Why did not that objection arise then ? What new light 
has been shed upon the country? When did it come'? Did it present itself 
at any time before slavery was ready — having secured all it at first claimed — 
to grasp all the remaining territory? How far is this to go? Are we next 
to remove the restriction in the resolution admitting Texas, and is all new 
territory hereafter to be acquired to be subject to no restriction? I think 
•the country will be led to inquire what is to be the effect of this continued 
increase of slave States ? Gentlemen talk of the balance of power having 
been secured to the free States. It strikes me that there will be some little 
power secured to the South, or to the slave States. But upon this question 
of constitutionality we have had an argument from the learned and honorable 
Senator from Connecticut, [Mr. Toucey.] He was not content with the 
views taken by other gentlemen, but has argued the matter in lull, as a law- 
yer. Allow me to say, sir, that upon that question I never had the least 
doubt. I can give a reason for it. Sir, in my early reading there was such 
a thing found as sovereignty. The Senator from Michigan has given us an 
argument on the subject of this constitutional power of Congress to prohibit 
slavery in the new Territories. 

Mr. CASS. Do you find it in the Constitution? 

Mr. FESSENDEN. Suppose I do not ; does it exist, or does it not ex- 
ist? 

Mr. CASS. It gives you no power. 

Mr. FESSENDEN. Is there such a thing as sovereignty recognised by 
the people? 

Mr. CASS. I Swill state to the Senator that it gives you no kind of power. 
You are sovereign in relation to other nations. When } T ou want to know 
what you may do, you may consult the laws of nations to ascertain ; but as 
to Avho is to do it, and how it is to be done, you must look to the Constitution ; 
and if you do not find it there, it is' with the people. 

Mr. FESSENDEN. I acknowledge the very high authority of the hon- 
orable Senator ; but I want to ask again, and gentlemen may answer it or 
not, whether there is or is not such a thing as sovereignty, the power to com- 
mand, and the power to make laws? It strikes me that there is. Well, if 
such a thing existed over this territory before it was ceded by France, if it 
did exist there Avhen the territory was ceded to the United States of America, 
did or did not the sovereignty pass with the territory ? It ceased in France. 
Did it become extinct, or did it live and pass to the United States ? If it 
passed to the United States, it passed to the people of the United States. 
Sovereignty — what is not granted by the Constitution — is in the people. All 
sovereignty with us is in the people. They parted with none, except in the 
form of the Constitution. If it existed in the people, to whom do the people 
delegate that sovereignty ? How do they exercise that sovereignty? Why, 
sir, they delegate it to the officers of the Constitution, whom the Constitution 
made; to the Congress of the United States, and the President of the United 
States. What sovereignty they may have, so far as they did act upon the 
subject, was delegated to the Congress of the United States. Is not this par- 
ticular subject provided for in the Constitution? Is nothing said about the 
Territories in the Constitution ? Do we not find them mentioned there ? I 



14 

is not found under this clause of the Constitution, or if not found there, under 
the general power which it has as proprietary of the land? I thought it was 
contrary to Southern doctrine ever to resort to mere implication, when you find 
a positive provision in the Constitution on the subject. I say, then, that not 
only is this a new doctrine, but, in my judgment, it is a doctrine unfounded 
in the Constitution ; and I say, moreover, to the Senator from Michigan, that 
if you carry out your doctrine of squatter sovereignty, as it is called, I see no 
reason why the people of those Territories may not institute a monarchical 
form of government, or any other which they choose, as long as they continue 
a Territory ; because, although the Constitution of the United States guar- 
anties a republican form of government to every State, it does not guaranty 
it to the Territory ; and if they have the exclusive power of legislation, and 
taking care of themselves, and regulating their own concerns, I see no limita- 
tion upon them until they become a State. 

I am no convert to the doctrine, new as it is, that this provision, this re- 
striction upon the slavery power, introduced into the act of lb20, was other- 
wise than constitutional. I believe that the similar restriction in the joint 
resolution for the annexation of Texas was equally constitutional. I believe 
that the Wilmot proviso is quite as constitutional ; and I have alrcad\ r said, 
that under my impressions, I would have adhered to it. I know of no other 
position taken except that assumed b} r Southern gentlemen, who say that this 
restriction is at war with equal rights. We demand equal rights ; we wish 
to go into that Territory with our property, say they. 

I do not mean to argue that matter. It has been exposed by the Senator 
from Michigan fully and conclusively. But I would ask Southern gentlemen 
why they cannot go there on as good terms as we can, if they go themselves 1 
It would be a pertinent inquiry, how many negroes a slaveholder must take 
with him from a slave State, in order to place him on an equality with a 
Northern man ? Does your equality consist in having negroes about you? 
Why, there is no Southern gentleman within the sound of my voice, or any- 
where, who would not scout the idea that he was not, in every respect, equal, 
if not superior, to any Northern man. And yet, gentlemen rise on this floor, 
and gravely argue that they cannot go into that Territory on equal terms, 
and with equal rights, with Northern men, unless they can be protected there 
in that " property ■■ which is so necessary to their social enjoyment. I do 
not intend to cany out this inquiry to an} r greater extent. I rose nierety to 
state some of my own views, and the views which, as I believe, the people of 
my State almost unanimously entertain upon this question. They consider 
it a mere matter — I will not say of robber) 7 , for that would not be parlia- 
mentary — but a matter of gross injustice. They make no appeals to the 
magnanimity of Southern Senators or Representatives. They know that they 
gain nothing by such an appeal, from those who come forward, under such a 
state of things, to repeal this Compromise line, after availing themselves of 
all the advantages which have resulted from it. They would gain no more 
by appealing to their magnanimity than they would by appealing to their love 
of peace. But we may appeal, with some hope, to their justice ; for I agree 
with my honorable friend from Ohio, [Mr. Wade,] that, in the matter of 
justice, as administered in their courts, they have been ready to render just 
judgments. 

Bat, sir, if this is designed as a measure of peace, let me tell you — not 
by way of prophecy, but as my own opinion — that anything but peace you 
will have. If gentlemen expect to quiet all these controversies by adopting 



13 

believe we do. I think we find it said that Congress shall have the power to 
make all needful rules and regulations regarding the Territories. 

Mr. CASS. " Territory or other property." 

Mr. FESSENDEN. I know that it is " territory or other property." 

Mr. CASS. Not "Territories." 

Mr. FESSENDEN. Well, the territory of the United States ; because 
at that time there was but one Territory. But " territory " is a general 
term. It means just as much as if it was in the plural, and said "Territo- 
ries." 

Mr. WELLER. Does not the Senator regard the decision of the Supreme 
Court of the United States ? 

Mr. FESSENDEN. Undoubtedly; we are bound always by those de- 
cisions, though on one side I sometimes find they are of very little authority ; 
but we will not dispute about that. I am not about to cite cases. I am 
speaking of what the Constitution provides; and it declares "the Congress 
shall have power to dispose of and make all needful rules and regulations 
respecting the Territories or other property belonging to the United States." 

Mr. WELLER. Territory. 

Mr. FESSENDEN. Well, territory. It makes no difference— the ter- 
ritory of the United States. Gentlemen argue this thing as if that included 
nothing but the regulation of the lands. Is not that a new idea ? How long 
has it existed'? 

Mr. CASS. Since the decision of the Supreme Court. 

Mr. FESSENDEN. When was that? 

Mr. CASS. Some twenty years ago. 

Mr. FESSENDEN. I cannot dispute the gentleman. Then that is to 
say that there is no further power given by that clause of the Constitution 
than to take and acquire hind. Has the Supreme Court decided that? 

Mr. CASS. I will state to the gentleman that the Supreme Court decided 
that " territory or other property," in that connection, meant lands. The 
Supreme Court decided afterwards, independently of that, that the power to 
regulate and dispose of the lands did include the right of jurisdiction. 

Mr. FESSENDEN. What does the expression mean, " to make all need- 
ful rules and regulations'?" Does it mean to make laws? How otherwise 
do we make rules and regulations ? Can Congress speak in any form except 
in the form of laws'? What does the Constitution mean when it says that 
Congress shall "regulate" commerce? How? By law. What does it 
mean when it says Congress shall "regulate" the value of coin? How can 
it do that? By law, by statute. How does it make " rules and regulations " 
for the government of the Army? By statute. How does it make 
regulations for the government of the Navy? By statute. Congress can 
make no rule or regulation except as a law. Very well, then, if Congress has 
power ; if so much of the sovereignty and power of the people of the United 
States is given to make laws for the Territory, I should like to know where 
the limitation is on that power to make laws? The honorable Senator from 
Michigan [Mr. Cass] himself says that there must be power to organize the 
Government. Wliere does he get that from, and why do you go to necessity, 
when there is a positive provision found in the Constitution of the United 
States? 

Sir, I do not deal in abstractions, but in plain and palpable provisions. 
" Congress shall have power to make all needful rules and regulations." Is 
there any gentleman here who contends that the power to organize and govern 






15 



what my constituents now consider, and very well consider, an act of gross 
wrong, under whatever pretence it may be, whether on the ground of the un- 
constitutionality of the former act, or any other, after having rested so long 
satisfied with it, let me tell them that this, in my judgment, is the beginning 
of their troubles. I can answer for one individual. I have avowed my own 
opposition to slavery, and I am as strong in it as my friend from Ohio, [Mr. 
Wade.] And I wish to say, with all seriousness, that if this matter is to 
be pushed so far beyond what the Constitution originally contemplated ; if, 
for political purposes, and with a political design and effect — because it is 
a political design and effect — we are to be driven to the wall by legislation 
here, let me tell gentlemen that this is not the last they will hear of the 
question. Territories are not States, and if this restriction is repealed with 
regard to that Territory, it is not yet in the Union, and you may be pre- 
pared to understand that, with the assent of the free States, in my judg- 
ment, it never will come into the Union, except with the exclusion of slavery. 
It may be that we shall be overborne as we have been before. I know 
not how many people of the North will yield to the cry of fraternity and 
concord, and all that sweet lullaby which has been sung in their ears so 
long. I only know that if their rights are outraged in one particular they must 
look to the next point. I speak to gentlemen as they have spoken to Northern 
men on this floor. If the Compromise of 1820 is to be annulled, if the 
Texas Compromise is to be considered unconstitutional, and go for nothing, 
the time will come ere long when we shall be called upon to act upon another 
question than this of the mere organization of Territories. I speak for my- 
self with all frankness. Gentlemen have talked here of a dissolution of the 
Union. We have heard that threat until we arc fatigued with the sound. 
We consider it now, let me say, as mere brutum fulmen, noise, and nothing 
else. It produces not the slightest impression upon the thinking portion of 
the public. You laugh at it yourselves. 

Mr. BUTLER. Who laugh ? [Laughter.] 

Mr. FESSENDEN. You at the South. You do not carry it seriously 
into private conversation. 

Mr. BUTLER. No, sir ; if your doctrine is carried out, if such senti- 
ments as yours prevail, I want a dissolution right away. 

Mr. FESSENDEN. As has been said before, do not delay it on my 
account. 

Mr. BUTLER. We do not on your account. 

Mr. FESSENDEN. Do not delay it on account of anybody at the North. 
I want the gentleman to understand that we do not believe in it. We love 
the Union as well as you do, and you love it as much as we do ; I am willing 
to allow all that. But, sir, if it has come to this, that whenever a question 
comes up between the free States and the slave States of this Union we are 
to be threatened with disunion, unless we yield, if that is the only alternative 
to be considered, it ceases to be a very grave question for honorable men and 
freemen to decide. I do not wish to say anything offensive to gentlemen, but 
I desire them to understand what I mean. It is that we are ready to meet 
every question on this floor fairly and honestly ; we are willing to be bound 
by the decision of the majority, as law. If it operates hardly upon us, we 
will bear it. If it is unconstitutional, we must go to the proper tribunal for 
a decision, and not threaten each other with what no one of us desires to exe- 
cute. 

Such, sir, are my views in reference to this matter. I have not spoken 




1S?* Y .. 0F CONGRESS 

16 

them so much for the Senate, as for the '*'''''''Hllilllilllllllll||||l||||||||f I to what 
I believe to be the sentiments of those ] "011 897 801 8 # \ on this 
floor. Whether right or not, time only can decide, and I am wining to abide 
that decision. 




Buell & Blanchard, Printers. 






congr 



£ss 






807 



HOLL1NGER 
pH8.5 

MILL RUN F3-1543 



